For years, debates over immigration enforcement in the United States have revolved around borders, visas, and asylum. This week, Adam Schiff sought to reframe the conversation around a more unsettling question: what happens when American citizenship itself fails to protect people from detention by the state.
At a public forum in California, Schiff listened as three residents — George, Andrea, and Javier — described encounters they say should not have happened in a country governed by due process. Each testified that they are U.S. citizens. Each said they carried valid identification. One is a military veteran. Yet all three reported being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers who, according to their accounts, disregarded repeated assertions of citizenship and held them for hours or days without charges.
Their stories share striking similarities. They described being stopped or pulled from vehicles, placed in restraints, and taken to detention facilities where explanations were scarce and access to lawyers, family members, or medical care was delayed or denied. “They kept saying they were trying to figure it out,” one witness recalled. “But while they figured it out, I was locked up.”
ICE has long acknowledged that mistaken detentions of U.S. citizens, while rare, do occur. In past years, the agency has paid settlements in such cases and pledged reforms. What alarmed Schiff, he said, was not only that these incidents continue, but the context in which they are happening: an enforcement climate that prioritizes speed and volume, coupled with legal processes that move far more slowly than the harm inflicted.
“This is not about immigration status,” Schiff said. “It’s about what happens when enforcement is untethered from accountability.”
Legal experts note that the Constitution draws no ambiguity on the question of detention without cause. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process to “persons,” not just citizens, and courts have repeatedly affirmed that the government bears the burden of justifying detention. Yet in practice, remedies often arrive late. A person wrongly detained may eventually be released, but only after days of confinement, lost wages, and psychological distress.
Several witnesses described lasting effects. One spoke of panic attacks after release, another of lingering fear whenever he sees law enforcement vehicles. “You start to realize that what you thought was a guarantee is actually conditional,” he said.
The broader legal backdrop adds to the concern. Challenges to immigration enforcement practices are working their way through the courts, including cases questioning the scope of ICE authority and the standards required to verify citizenship claims in the field. While those cases proceed, enforcement continues. Courts, including the Supreme Court, have allowed contested practices to remain in place pending final rulings — a procedural norm that critics say carries human costs.
Former immigration judges say the issue is not simply one of bad actors, but of structure. “When agents are incentivized to act first and verify later, mistakes become predictable,” said one retired judge. “And when verification fails, the consequences fall entirely on the individual.”
ICE officials have responded in past statements that agents are trained to assess citizenship claims and that individuals who assert U.S. citizenship should be released once status is confirmed. The agency has also said it investigates allegations of misconduct. In the cases highlighted by Schiff, ICE has not publicly commented on the specific allegations.
Advocates argue that the implications extend beyond the individuals involved. If U.S. citizens can be detained without immediate recourse, they say, the risk to non-citizens — particularly those without lawyers or stable documentation — is even greater. Schiff posed that question directly: if this is happening to citizens, what protections exist for those without status?
Supporters of aggressive enforcement counter that officers operate under difficult conditions and must make rapid judgments, often with incomplete information. They warn that constraining enforcement too tightly could impede legitimate operations. But civil liberties groups respond that constitutional rights are not conveniences to be weighed against efficiency.
What emerged from the testimony was not a partisan spectacle, but a warning. Rights, Schiff argued, do not enforce themselves. They depend on oversight, transparency, and consequences when power is misused.
“This is not about politics,” he said. “It’s about whether we accept a system where anyone can be taken first and justified later.”
For the witnesses, the experience has altered their understanding of security in their own country. Citizenship, they said, no longer feels absolute. As their accounts circulate, lawmakers face a familiar but urgent challenge: how to ensure that enforcement does not erode the very liberties it claims to defend.
